20
Study 1: IAT as consciousness- raising tool? (Monteith, Voils, & Ashburn-Nardo, 2001)  Does the IAT provide palpable info?  How do people interpret and react to the detection of biased performance on the IAT?

24
Study 1: Summary  95% exhibited an IAT bias favoring Whites over Blacks  64% “felt” that they were faster when White + pleasant and slower when Black + pleasant  17% attributed their response times to race-related factors, and this was associated with greater Negself

25
Study 2: IAT as teaching tool? (Morris & Ashburn-Nardo, revision in prep)  Does taking the IAT via the demo website (www.implicit.harvard.edu) teach people about implicit social cognition and bias?www.implicit.harvard.edu  Does the IAT web demo make people aware that they may have implicit bias?  What is the affective impact of receiving feedback from the IAT web demo?

28
Study 2: Summary  Majority of students implicitly favored Whites over Blacks  After taking the IAT and discussing it in class −students more knowledgeable about IAT and implicit bias. −students more readily recognized possibility that they and others have implicit biases. −students reported more positive than negative affect regarding feedback. −students saw IAT demo as useful  Even w/o classroom discussion −students reported more positive than negative affect regarding feedback.

29
Conclusions  IAT inappropriate for selection, termination decisions  IAT appropriate for diversity training −Increases awareness of implicit biases −To the extent that people are made aware, they may be motivated to self-regulate −Evokes more positive than negative affect −Seen as worthwhile experience −Easy to administer (via website demo)